Troubled families report contains more anecdote than evidence

There is nothing new in Louise Casey's report, Listening to troubled families (Without informed consent, Society, 18 July). As a social worker for more than 40 years I recognise the issues in the case studies. However, her findings only reiterate the importance of early identification, intervention and co-ordination of services to meet children's needs.

The report is based on a tiny group of families who have met a particular set of criteria for inclusion in a family intervention project so that they can receive intensive intervention at a point of crisis. The report offers no evidence that these families are typical of the families involved in these projects, or of what may or may not have been successful in working with them. Nor does it show these families to be typical of the so-called 120,000 "troubled families" or that this method of working with them is more successful than that of current public services, particularly if the equivalent resources were made available to them.

The report looks at the impact of their difficult childhoods on the adults in the interviews and their ability to parent. There is scant reference to how the damaging situations for the children in those families are being addressed by family intervention projects and any success or otherwise. It ignores all the work over the past decades in moving from a so-called traditional approach of dealing with crises to one which uses all children's public services to meet children's needs. Changes in public policy and austerity measures already place this approach under threat and the "120,000 troubled families" initiative is a further diversion.

There may be a justification for working intensively with families in crisis who have not benefited from the current more co-ordinated approach and for additional funding to achieve it. But with scarce resources, it would be more appropriate to build on existing successes in all public services for children rather than backing another initiative.Sue BarkerWhitley Bay, Tyne and Wear

• In her excellent critique of Louise Casey's "research" (The real 'problem' with these families is that they're poor, 19 July), Zoe Williams draws on my analysis of the "120,000" troubled families, a very rough estimate of families experiencing multiple deprivation in 2004. Casey's report is little more than anecdotal tabloid journalism masquerading as research. In particular, she describes very large, dysfunctional families, often from multiple partners, characterised by a history of sexual abuse and violence.

On the question of family size alone, eight of the 16 cases portrayed have four or more children, a full 50%. As she notes, in the population as a whole, only 4% of families have four or more children. However, the research that generated the 120,000 figure was unable to show that the multiply deprived families in question differed from the rest of the population in this regard. A representative range would therefore have included no more than one such family. Casey's so-called research is thus a grossly unrepresentative calumny, and not, as she claims, "a good starting place to inform our thinking and policy development".Ruth LevitasUniversity of Bristol

• To really drive change, Ms Casey might usefully just copy the strategy and practices that were so efficient for the Stasi. There's no need to reinvent the wheel.JK McCarthyLondon